2005 Chrysler Pt Cruiser Gt Convertible 2-door 2.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Suppliers love Toyota and Honda: Why that matters to you

You might think that a survey of automotive suppliers and their relationship with OEMs is the automotive equivalent of nerd prom. In some ways that's what the North American Automotive OEM-Supplier Working Relations Index (WRI) is. The study, the 17th annual conducted by Planning Perspectives Inc., is based on input from 652 salespeople from 108 Tier One suppliers, or, PPI points out, 40 of the top 50 automotive suppliers in North America. Suppliers to General Motors, Ford, FCA, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. But the results have consequences in terms of tens of millions of dollars for OEMs - and in the quality, technology, and cost of the next vehicle you buy. There are a couple of ways to look at the results of the WRI. One is, "So what else is new?" And the other is, "Damn! How did that happen?" The study looks at five relationship areas — OEM Supplier Relationship; OEM Communication; OEM Help; OEM Hindrance; Supplier Profit Opportunity — within six purchasing areas — Body-in-White; Chassis; Electrical/Electronics; Exterior; Interior; Powertrain. In the overall rankings, Toyota is on top for the 15 th time in 17 years, with a score of 328. Honda, the only company to best Toyota (in 2009 and 2010), comes in second, at 319. Those two companies, explains John Henke, president of PPI, have collaborative working arrangements with colleagues and suppliers alike built into the very fabric of their cultures. This, however, is not a situation where one can readily conclude it is about "Japanese companies," because the third company with headquarters on the island of Honshu, Nissan, came in dead last. This is the "How did that happen?" portion. The Nissan score of 203 puts it 125 points behind Toyota. There hasn't been a number that low since the then-Chrysler Corp. scored 187 in 2010, when the company was clawing its way out of the recession. Clearly, the suppliers don't feel particularly engaged by the buyers at Nissan. Henke explains that whether a company does well or not on the WRI is rather simple. All people do things based on what they're measured on. "If you're measured on taking 10% out of your annual buy, you immediately know how to do it. But if you're also measured on improving relations, suddenly there is a new dynamic as to what you can do to achieve both.

Google-Chrysler autonomous project will include ride-sharing

Google's new Waymo automobile-technology division might have just gotten "way mo" interesting, if you'll excuse the pun. Google, which this spring said it would work with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles on the development of a self-driving Chrysler minivan prototype, is adding a ride-sharing component to the project, Bloomberg News says, citing people familiar with the process. Representatives with both Fiat Chrysler and Google parent Alphabet Inc. declined to comment to Bloomberg. The ride-sharing service, which would compete with fellow San Francisco Bay Area-based companies such as Uber and Lyft, may debut as soon as the end of next year. Uber continues to move forward with its own self-driving efforts, launching self-driving tests (with engineers behind the wheel) in Pittsburgh in September and announcing this week that it would start tests in San Francisco. Those efforts may be delayed, however, as the state of California requires special permitting for testing out self-driving technology, and while the state has granted those permits to automakers such as General Motors, Tesla and Ford, it hasn't for Uber. Google and Chrysler said earlier this year that it would develop about 100 autonomous-driving Pacifica prototypes, but the ride-sharing service would require more of those vehicles to be built. Google's auto-technology operations, now called Waymo, have been headed by former Hyundai executive John Krafcik since September 2015. The division has reportedly brought in more executive-level personnel to speed things along. Meanwhile, Chrysler is slated to unveil an all-electric prototype version of the Pacifica at Las Vegas's annual CES show next month. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

FCA US under-reported death and injury claims to NHTSA

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says FCA US significantly under-reported death and injury claims due to flaws in its early warning system. The government first discovered a potential problem with the automaker's reporting in late July, and FCA US has been investigating the issue since. NHTSA claims that the problem appears linked to the way the company gathers and reports safety information. The agency is still investigating how serious the flaws are and their causes. "This represents a significant failure to meet a manufacturer's safety responsibilities," NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind.Rosekind said in a statement. FCA US admits that it "identified deficiencies" in the reporting, but in a statement the company said that it notified NHTSA of the issue immediately. The company promised that it is taking this problem "extremely seriously" and pledged to remedy the situation. In late July, FCA US was hit with a potential $105-million fine by NHTSA for the way the automaker conducted some recalls. As part of that agreement, the company also consented to more rigorous oversight by safety regulators in the future and a buy-back of some affected vehicles. Other automakers have been punished for failing to submit EWR data. Honda incurred a $70 million fine in January from NHTSA for missing 1,729 incidents over 11 years. Ferrari had to pay $3.5 million in 2014 for not sending them in for three years. Statement from NHTSA Administrator, Mark Rosekind, on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' under-reported discrepancy in FCA's Early Warning Report data September 29, 2015 "In late July, NHTSA notified Fiat Chrysler Automobiles of an apparent discrepancy in FCA's Early Warning Report data. FCA has informed NHTSA that in investigating that discrepancy, it has found significant under-reported notices and claims of deaths, injuries and other information required as part of the Early Warning Reporting system. Preliminary information suggests that this under-reporting is the result of a number of problems with FCA's systems for gathering and reporting EWR data. This represents a significant failure to meet a manufacturer's safety responsibilities. NHTSA will take appropriate action after gathering additional information on the scope and causes of this failure." – Mark Rosekind, NHTSA Administrator. Statement: TREAD Reporting September 29, 2015 , Auburn Hills, Mich.